You have the right to go onto my property and steal my shtuff. I however have the right to shoot you if you do, and the police have the right to arrest me.

If these things happed, they would be natural, God given rights. A right is what you have permission to do, and you only have permission when you do it, not before or after.

When people think they have permission in advance, they are speaking in human fabrication, not the divine will of God.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 6/17/2012 3:35:24 PM, frozen_eclipse wrote:should it be morally permissable to shoot someone just because of a property crime or theft?

I think it can be.

If someone is stealing a paper-clip from me, I'm not going to shoot them. If they are stealing my wife's heart medication, I'm going to shoot them.

Of course, I'll give them the chance. If I point a gun at someone in my house and he just keeps on stealing, then he is being incredibly stupid and continuing to disrespect my rights.

Unfortunately, with laws the way they are, it's better to shoot somebody dead than try to be humane and only wound them to stop them.

The movie "Phantasm" (1979) comes to mind when I read this.

"Now, remember: you don't aim a gun at a man unless you intend to shoot him. And, you don't shoot a man unless you intend to kill him. No warning shots. Hey, you listening to me? No warning shots. Warning shots are bullsh!t. You shoot to kill, or you don't shoot at all."

At 6/17/2012 3:35:24 PM, frozen_eclipse wrote:should it be morally permissable to shoot someone just because of a property crime or theft?

I think it can be.

If someone is stealing a paper-clip from me, I'm not going to shoot them. If they are stealing my wife's heart medication, I'm going to shoot them.

Of course, I'll give them the chance. If I point a gun at someone in my house and he just keeps on stealing, then he is being incredibly stupid and continuing to disrespect my rights.

Unfortunately, with laws the way they are, it's better to shoot somebody dead than try to be humane and only wound them to stop them.

The movie "Phantasm" (1979) comes to mind when I read this.

"Now, remember: you don't aim a gun at a man unless you intend to shoot him. And, you don't shoot a man unless you intend to kill him. No warning shots. Hey, you listening to me? No warning shots. Warning shots are bullsh!t. You shoot to kill, or you don't shoot at all."

That's pretty much it. I would honestly rather just stop someone instead of killing them, but you are much more likely to be prosecuted and convicted for wounding someone than killing them, as it gives prosecution the chance to say 'If you were really concerned for your safety you would have tried to kill him, not just blow off his kneecap'.

At 6/17/2012 10:30:11 PM, Lasagna wrote:It's a conflict of interests: if you leave an intruder alive, they get a lawyer and give a different version of what happened.

"What do you do" (Keanu.jpg)

Well, people better be careful if they try to break into my house when I'm home. We have someone who actually does want us dead, and has broken in before. I wasn't ready for him the first time, I will be next time.

At 6/17/2012 3:35:24 PM, frozen_eclipse wrote:should it be morally permissable to shoot someone just because of a property crime or theft?

No.

A theft/burglary/trespassing does not warrant such drastic measures of using deadly force.

Cogito ergo sum - Rene Descartes

: At 6/23/2012 1:15:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote: (to Jimtimmy)
:
: You are the equivelent of a fly buzzing around a cow. I can just swat you with my tail without it taking my attention away from grazing the sweet grass that is DDO.